GPS rangefinders are popular in the game of golf. GPS rangefinders are used to inform the golfer of the golfer's location on a golf course relative to the location of other mapped areas of interest on the course (e.g. sand traps, greens, etc.) GPS rangefinders are typically available in either cart-mounted or handheld versions.
Examples of popular cart-mounted GPS rangefinder products include Prolink and UpLink. Examples of popular handheld GPS products include the SkyCaddie by SkyHawke and Golflogix, to name a few. A potentially valuable feature of handheld GPS rangefinders is the ability for the golfer to “mark the location” of the ball and other areas of interest. With existing handheld systems the golfer is able to press a button on the handheld devices to mark the location of the ball. Similar technology could be implemented in cart-mounted GPS systems, but the handheld systems have the advantage of the golfer being able to walk to the actual location of the golf ball to mark the location. Often golf carts are restricted to “cart path only” access on a golf course and it is often not practical to drive a golf cart to the actual location of a golf ball due to the terrain.
Marking the location of the ball provides valuable information to the golfer. The current handheld systems operate in approximately the following manner: When the golfer hits the first (tee) shot of a hole the golfer presses a button on the handheld device instructing the device to “mark the spot” where the drive was hit. The device records the GPS coordinates of the first shot. The golfer may manually enter, through a manual input interface, other information on the device such as: type of club used (e.g. driver, 5 iron, etc.), type of contact made with the ball (e.g. hook, slice, straight), wind conditions, etc. The current method to enter such data consists of the golfer making selections on the device by pressing buttons, selecting items from drop down menus, etc.
After the golfer hits the first shot, records the location of the first shot and enters data about the first shot the golfer approaches the ball at rest for the next shot. If the golfer follows the same pattern as the first shot (i.e. hitting the ball, marking the spot of the shot on the device, entering other information) the GPS system can store and display the locations of the first and second shots and calculate the distance of the first shot. If this pattern is continued for every shot of the round the golfer would have very valuable data about the golf round including: distance of all shots, locations of all shots and (if entered), type of contact made on all shots, wind conditions for all shots, etc. The golfer would also know the number of strokes taken per hole which (if accurately recorded) would be the golfer's score for the round. However golfers seldom use the features because the process of manually entering data is too labor intensive on a golf course and will lengthen the duration of each golf shot, causing delays in the game. Further, if a data collection system requires action by the golfer it is likely the golfer may forget to take action on every stroke. If the golfer forgets to take action to record a stroke or multiple strokes the system provides the golfer inaccurate data. Further, if the golfer attempts to return to the approximate location where the golfer forgot to record the golf stroke this would result in further slowing down of play which is bad for the game of golf. Patents exist that describe GPS systems with methods for collecting and managing data. Both U.S. Pat. No. 6,582,328 (Golflogix) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,118,498 (SkyHawke) describe such systems that require the golfer to enter golf shot data.
The problem with existing systems is golfers do not want to manually record the data for golf strokes into a handheld device. It is inconvenient for golfers to take the time to look at a handheld device, press buttons, select from drop-down lists, etc. to record information about every golf shot. One could say it is impractical for golfers to do so. Further, if golfers took the time to enter data in such a manual manner it would result in slower play which is not good for the golfers or the golf courses. It is desirable to have a completely automatic system for collecting golf data. U.S. Patent Application No. 60/949,458 describes such a system. The system described in this patent application includes means of detecting motion of the golf ball to confirm when an actual golf stroke has occurred. Such a system requires modification to the golf ball.
The problem of requiring the golfer to enter data manually is known. U.S. Pat. No. 7,121,962 and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2007/0135237 and 2007/0129178 (all by Reeves) teach solving the problem using telemetry equipped golf clubs. The solutions taught by Reeves are impractical and fail to address all the issues required to accurately collect and record golf data. Reeves teaches entering data on a handheld device to record golf data, which is not good for the game because it would slow down play. Reeves teaches golf clubs with unique holes in or near the club head that make unique whistling sounds during the golf swing to identify each club. This approach is not practical due to variations in swing speed, wind and other noise variations that would make the system unreliable. Reeves teaches the use of a microphone housed in the handheld device to hear the clicking sound when the club hits to the ball to record the location of the stroke. This does not take into account practice shots between holes and other clicking sounds when clubs hit objects and would be prone to errors. Further, Reeves teaches requiring expensive and sophisticated electronics on the golf club (i.e. motion detector, and accelerometer). The expense of such components makes for an impractical solution.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,030,109 teaches a system for counting strokes automatically by detecting the distinctive sound made by a ball contacting the club face during a hit. The system disclosed seems to be problematic and potentially ineffective for several reasons. Similar to Reeves, this patent confirms a golf stroke by the sound made by the club striking the ball. Because golfers will often hit balls between holes for practice and hit other objects that might sound similar to hitting a ball the system will be prone to errors. A further potential problem relates to the insensitivity to a very gentle putt that generates no characteristic sound pattern. Finally, this system requires the golfer to wear an ankle strap with a microphone in it which golfers will likely not want to wear.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0270450 teaches a voice activated system for collecting and recording golf data. This system requires action (verbal instruction) by the golfer for each golf action to be recorded. Therefore the system does not automatically record golf data. Golfers may not like having to speak instructions for every action to be recorded. Further, golfers may forget to verbally instruct the recording of golf strokes which could result in attempts to return to locations where data was not recorded, slowing down play.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,143,639 and US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0272516 teach a golf launch monitor that uses RFID tags in golf balls and golf clubs to automatically identify the clubs and balls and to trigger a camera-based launch monitor system. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/672,365, filed Sep. 26, 2003 teaches passive RFID in golf balls and the identifying of such golf balls by a RFID reader.
Other examples of related prior art for golf data collection and management systems include: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,705,942, 5,086,390, 4,910,677, 5,127,044, 5,283,733, 5,298,904, 6,908,404 and US Patent Application Publications 2002/0177490, 2002/0004723, 2001/0045904, 2002/0188359, 2005/0268704, 2005/0272516 and 2004/0147329.
Golf data collection systems will provide golfers with rich data about their golf game but existing systems and systems taught in the prior art above have shortcomings or challenges. The systems described above require either: 1) a modification to the golf ball, 2) expensive and sophisticated electronics on the golf club, 3) the golfer remembering to take an action to record every golf stroke (without a reminder) and 4) the golfer wearing an ankle strap with a microphone in it which golfers will likely not want to wear. Some of the prior art systems have technical challenges, such as relying on sound made by the club striking the ball to record every stroke—which may not be technically feasible for all strokes, particularly putts.